跳到正文

Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus英文区研究者X 主页 数据 10月7日 11:06 — 11月4日 22:31
日均 8.3 条活跃 27 天带媒体 16.1%

粉丝与涨粉

快照 11月4日 · 7 日榜 268 个账号可排
粉丝
25.6万
7 日涨粉
+344
+0.1% · 发帖 53 条
7 日名次
#127
中文区 —
每帖涨粉
+6
窗口内 53 条原创帖
每千曝光
1.8
同档(20 万以上)中位 20.1
30 日涨粉
—
快照还不够 30 天

值得借鉴

  • 近 120 天带图或视频占 16.1%、回复占 0%,形式以纯文字为主。
  • 每千曝光涨 1.8 粉,同粉丝档(20 万以上)中位 20.1,低于中位。
  • 日均 8.3 条、浏览中位 1,943,这个节奏可以照抄。
10-09每日涨粉(25 次快照)11-04

近 7 日代表帖浏览前 5 + 互动率前 3,最多 10 条

  1. 1

    sanity is finally starting to win out

    浏览 4.4万赞 267转 1411月2日 16:39原帖
  2. 2

    Based: When Elon accidentally confirms what you have been saying for over three years

    浏览 2.3万赞 395转 4211月2日 15:30原帖
  3. 3

    to the extent that this is true it is absolutely terrifying.

    浏览 1.4万赞 174转 1311月2日 17:05原帖
  4. 4

    Positively hilarious how just a week ago people were wondering @edzitron and I were ok. 🤣

    浏览 1万赞 194转 1311月2日 15:32原帖
  5. 5

    tech bros: and other bulls how far would coreweave, nvidia and oracle have to fall from their peaks before you would say “yeah bubble sure looks like it popped”?

    浏览 6,585赞 70转 1311月3日 04:02原帖
  6. 6

    has anybody checked on Elon?

    浏览 4,145赞 156转 611月4日 15:00原帖
  7. 7

    the business of fleecing the American public with AI fantasies just got harder. markets are already reacting.

    浏览 3,347赞 114转 1611月4日 14:59原帖
  8. 8

    this is evil

    浏览 1,232赞 38转 811月4日 00:12原帖

本周涨粉观察

全部观察

每周一生成;中文区、7 日涨粉超过 1000 的账号会有条目。

帖子
249
活跃 27 天 / 跨度 30 天
中位浏览
1,943
P90 5,570 · 平均 3,595
互动率
1.3%
中位赞 20 · 最高 1,305

发布节奏

最近 12 周
10-05
10-12
10-19
10-26
11-02
柱状图,最大值 85 条

每周中位浏览

最近 12 周
10-0510-1210-1910-2611-02
峰值 1.5万

发布时间

颜色 = 中位浏览
最佳时段 15:00最佳星期 周一更优形式 带图/视频
036912151821
一
二
三
四
五
六
日
少多

爆款 vs 日常

爆款 = 浏览前 10%
指标爆款日常
帖子25224
带媒体20%15.6%
回复0%0%
平均字数185135
中位浏览1.4万1,783

打法建议

只陈述相关性
  • 互动最好的时段是 15:00 前后(北京时间),中位浏览 1,529。
  • 一周里 周一 的中位浏览最高。
  • 形式上 带图/视频 的中位浏览更高(2,087 vs 1,935)。
  • 爆款里带媒体占 20%、回复占 0%;日常分别是 15.6%、0%。
  • 当前节奏约 8.3 条/天,日均浏览 3,595。

内容结构

按本站分析的分类(近 120 天)

还没有分类分析。

形式与语言

帖子占比
  • 纯文字209
  • 图片38
  • 视频2
英文 · 244es · 2art · 1ht · 1qme · 1

回复占比 0% · 引用 71.5% · 带媒体 16.1%

互动最高的帖子

按浏览排序
  1. 1

    terence tao, shitposting🤣

    浏览 10万赞 1,305转 11110月7日 23:43原帖
  2. 2

    sanity is finally starting to win out

    浏览 4.4万赞 267转 1411月2日 16:39原帖
  3. 3

    Complementary remarks from Gary Marcus and Terence Tao on OpenAI’s giant math drop Making sense of a new regime in math https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/complementary-remarks-from-gary-marcus?r=8tdk6&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web

    浏览 3.5万赞 123转 2710月8日 01:22原帖
  4. 4

    holy shit

    浏览 2.7万赞 367转 4510月27日 04:15原帖
  5. 5

    We need a name for the kind of people that conflate 2022 pure LLMs that were in fact a tiny bit like stochastic parrots (not my phrase, and not one I ever endorsed) with 2026 systems that couple those LLMs together with symbolic harnesses, code interpreters, and symbolic verification, typically to make a slippery rhetorical point. Aside from being unfair to people who made a metaphor that applied (to some degree) to the technology of that time, it disrespects the innovations that were subsequently made and disrespects the critical contributions that neurosymbolic AI made to progress. What I hate most about this site is that so many people talk about AI yet few take any time to understand how the different underlying technologies work. Most prefer to make cheap rhetorical points instead. Which is exactly why we are in the mess we are in.

    浏览 2.4万赞 153转 1110月12日 15:17原帖
  6. 6

    Based: When Elon accidentally confirms what you have been saying for over three years

    浏览 2.3万赞 395转 4211月2日 15:30原帖
  7. 7

    The real news here isn’t the result; it’s what we were not told. 1. AI once tried to be a science. Now we get stuff like the completely vague report from OpenAI below, and a lot of ignorant questions from people who don’t know how to think critically. “Same procedure”? “using an unreleased model”? This would never pass peer review. We don’t know what the procedure was. We know nothing about the architecture (e.g., were proofs generated in one shot, and then verified by Lean? was there an iterative process?). We know nothing about the failure rate. We know nothing about the training/post training/data agumentation. 2. As a result we have zero idea of how generalizable the result is outside math. 3. A lot of X has been reduced to an ignorant cheering section that applauds without knowing what it is applauding or what it might mean — without ever asking basic scientific questions. The new system could be a legitimate step towards AGI or just a clever leveraging of Lean and synthetic data in a verifiable domain with no generality whatsoever; from this report we can tell almost nothing.

    浏览 2.3万赞 368转 5010月8日 00:12原帖
  8. 8

    “Use of AI tools, when done responsibly, can support not just the initial generation of a solution, but all of the valuable followup activities that traditionally flow out of that solution. But at the current time, the opposite is often occurring.” - Terence Tao

    浏览 2万赞 347转 6510月7日 23:45原帖
  9. 9

    i honestly don’t understand how technophilia turned into this condescending and scientifically ignorant cult. is the dynamics of social media? it is about money? it’s truly sad, whatever it is. tech should be a good thing, not what it’s become. and above all else it should cherish science and not run roughshod over it.

    浏览 1.8万赞 463转 5310月7日 11:51原帖
  10. 10

    what’s the best argument against this?

    浏览 1.6万赞 107转 510月7日 11:54原帖
  11. 11

    an actually intelligent question! i give my answer below it.

    浏览 1.5万赞 31转 110月7日 11:08原帖
  12. 12

    Photos can’t fully do justice to majesty of the translucent marble of The Taj Mahal.

    浏览 1.4万赞 305转 1010月12日 12:24原帖

点赞、转发、浏览是采集那一刻的快照,不是帖子最终数据;时间为北京时间。KPI 卡片里的同比只在账号有 8 周以上数据时显示, 否则只看近 4 周。“打法建议”只说明数据里的相关性,不代表因果。